Quantitative Article Review

Research Article Critique 1 Running Head RESEARCH member CRITIQUE Research Article Critique of The Study of T severallyer Perceptions of Instructional engine room integration in the Classroom by Lynette Molstad Gorder The purpose of this assignment was to review a peer reviewed journal article that is look for based, and is representative of one of the research methodologies we discussed in distinguish. The format of the article has the appearance of a dissertation because it has umpteen of the same components. It starts with an abstract that discusses the main points of the research and the results. afterwards reading the article, I found that the abstract failed to detect that the research was based on teachers who attended a engine room course at South Dakota University. After going through a basic and advance engine room course, the teachers were sent a canvas to probe whether those teachers were integrating technology into teaching and learning. The research methodo logy utilize in this charter were surveys analyzed in a quantitative design. More specific on the wholey, two survey instruments were introduced in the article, only when only one was used. twain were designed by Mills and Tincher (2003).They describe the Technology Integration Standards Configuration matrix (TISC) as the original neb. This looked at technology as a tool to enhance student learning and a tool for professional productivity. The second tool described by the same designer developed the Technology Integration Matrix (TICM). This tool was more user-friendly and just described what the teacher does and what the students do in a technology outfitted classroom. Later in the article we discover that TICM is survey based on a scale rating (1)never, (2)seldom, (3)sometimes, (4)often, and (5)always.Using this tool, the author sought to find out to what degree teachers integrate technology into their classroom and into teaching and learning after taking two technology int egration classes. Using the survey the study also revealed comparisons of teacher perceptions of uses and integration based on personal characteristics. These characteristics are age, gender, number of days in the teaching field, grade level taught, core area, and education level. The research unbeliefs the study offered were 1) How do teachers shortly use and integrate technology for teaching and learning in the classroom? ) How do teachers differ in the extent to which they integrate instructional technology based on the characteristics of gender, age, teaching experience, grade level taught, content area, and educational level? The characteristics are considered factors and were compared to the integration of technology in the classroom. The dependent variable in this study is the integration of technology in teaching and learning in the classroom. The independent variable is the basic and advanced training course that teachers took at South Dakota University.Two courses were given at South Dakota University. The subjects for this study were all the students who participated in the two courses. The author used teachers in K-12 who attended both a Basic Technology for Teaching and Learning Academy, and the Advanced Technology for Teaching and Learning Academy at Dakota State University in Madison, South Dakota. A possible issue related to sampling may be that the author used teachers who attended a specific professional development experience. What if the courses did not benefit the students?A survey was mail to the 300 South Dakota teachers who attended the classes. Of the 300 teachers who took the classes, 174 returned the survey. This was a 58% response rate. As we discussed in class 50% is a good response. The findings were based on the participants use and integration of technology in the classroom for teaching and learning, and the digressions in perceptions based on the demographic and personal characteristics. Of the thirteen page article, seven pages were devoted(p) to the findings.Demographic data collected were gender, age, teaching experience, grade level teaching, content area, and educational level. Research question one, how do teachers currently use and integrate technology for teaching and learning in the classroom was carve up into three phases. Phase one devoted to professional productivity, phase two devoted to delivering instruction using technology, and phase three devoted to teachers integrating technology into student learning. The results were displayed APA style in a chart that displayed Mean and Standard Deviation.For this question, the findings report that teachers do not integrate technology well for teaching and learning, but do for professional productivity and facilitation of delivery of instruction. The second research question compared technology integration to each characteristic factor. For the first factor of male vs. female, a t-test was used to compare. There was no significant difference i n gender and the use or integration of technology. Each factor was compared using a unidirectional ANOVA (analysis of variance).ANOVA is used when you have factors and a dependent variable. For each of the characteristics or factors a mover was displayed for each of the differences of perception regarding, age, years teaching experience, grade level taught, content area, and educational level. From the findings of this analysis, only grade level taught had a significant difference in technology integration and uses. Teachers of Grades 9-12 use and integrate technology into learning more than teachers in lower grades. The study was accurate in their analysis and their findings.The study does not describe the content of the courses the teachers attended at the South Dakota University, or method of delivery. It only supplies the title of the course. References Gorder, L. (2008). A Study of Teacher Perceptions of Instructional Technology Integration in the Classroom. The Delta Pi Epsi lon Journal, L (2), 63-76. Mills, S. C. , &Tincher, R. C. (2003) Be the technology A developmental model for evaluating technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 382-401.